http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002619.html?referrer=emailarticle
Now that we have the Al Gore pretenders on the run, perhaps we can go back to oil and a responsible search for it that can be accomplished closer to home without harm to the environment.
Every time we read that we're running out of oil, or we're polluting when we're trying to find it, or we're polluting when we're using it, my suggestion is that someone needs to slow down the debate and use some facts. Thanks to the government stimulus programs, we are protecting the "marsh mouse" in, or near San Francisco so we can all feel comfortable that the ecosystem is politically protected. We are living on a life line of container ships that, as Dr. Lawrence Redlinger so brilliantly pointed out last week in one of our seminars, ply the seas back and forth to other continents while using the dirtiest (cheapest) form of diesel oil for power. That's an easy example of what can be fixed - upgrade the power plants of the ships that service the U.S. by retrofitting, if that's even necessary, to use clean diesel power and require new container ships to use other versions of cost effective power plants. For example, we already have jet engines powering the largest luxury cruise ships to great effect (those ships are faster and more maneuverable while burning cleaner). But don't add to the government bureaucracy to "police" the power plants of container ships
George Will's article attached refers to the correlation between the natural momentum of government to creep toward further regulation and people's fears that they need protection. To quote Will: "Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism."
Let's go to oil. Canada has (by some estimates) more oil than Saudi Arabia. Their oil sands pollute. Canada supplies more oil to the U.S. than any other country. What should the U.S. do? We'll leave that question open ended. The U.S. has more natural gas and coal than it needs for the next 50 years (at least). And, while U.S. politicians worry about the dangers to the "marsh mouse" of pumping oil off the east or west coasts, China is drilling 22 miles away from Miami. Modern technology is such that potential spills are far less problematic than they used to be.
So, the EPA announces this week that it's going to get the carbon by regulating CO2. This announcement was just in time for Copenhagen. Now, I'm not one of those fancy climate scientists, but my thought is that we exhale CO2 when we "breathe". So, what's next, no soda because we have an obesity epidemic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You know, the more I think and learn about the oil problem, I think there is a question no one is asking themselves: "Why do we want to conserve oil?" Is it for future generations to use it up? Is it because it's pretty?
ReplyDeleteAssuming we operate in a free market economy/world, we assume the open market decides the most efficient and inexpensive way of generating power. Today, that is oil - as soon as oil becomes too expensive (as it did in 2008), we start researching alternatives, but today we are back to oil prices that make it the cheapest and most efficient way to generate power.
So again, let's ask ourselves: What is the true reason behind wanting to conserve oil?
Great point Marcelo! The more we worry about "oil", the more we find. You've seen the National Petroleum Council study (2005 thru 2007) commissioned by the U.S. government solely to settle the oil supply issue. That study included Peak Oil advocates, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's basic conclusion: we're not going to run out of oil anytime soon even though we are restricting ourselves from drilling off our own East and West coasts. Although, we allow China to drill near Miami.
ReplyDeleteIs not Copenhagen going to drive the price of oil up? Think about it, oil drillers have no long term incentive. Peak oil exists in practice, not reality.
ReplyDeleteCopenhagen is a sincere effort by a group of misguided people/governments to accelerate clean climate programs at the expense of economic growth. We all want clean climate but not at the expense of those who are starving. Remember your information on prioritizing world problem solutions from Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus? Global Warming came in 30th. Child starvation and disease came in first. There is, and will be, plenty of "oil".
ReplyDelete